Analyses of God beliefs, atheism, religion, faith, miracles, evidence for religious claims, evil and God, arguments for and against God, atheism, agnosticism, the role of religion in society, and related issues.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

The Texas Sharpshooter gets his rifle and fires a round at the side of a barn. Then he goes over, draws a big circle around the bullet hole and proudly announces that he’s a perfect marksman.

It has become very common for Christians to proclaim the virtues of the Bible. It’s a singular, coherence narrative, they say. Or they are awestruck by the seeming consistency between the different Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life (they aren’t very consistent, but we’ll leave that alone for the moment.) They marvel that Jesus was the culmination of lots of Old Testament prophecies about a savior. They say, “How else could so many people over so many centuries come to agree about so much and have such an integrated view about what God is?” The book itself, it seems, is evidence enough that the book itself is profoundly accurate.

What the modern believer often fails to realize is that they are at the receiving end of a very long, complicated historical Sharpshooter fallacy. From the time of Jesus until about 250 A.D., hundreds of early Christian writings came into existence and began to circulate among early followers. These documents told a wide range of stories about Jesus, God, and the early history of Christianity. In some Jesus was not resurrected from the dead; he was only a man. In others, the course of events is very different than that told in the four Gospels. Intense debates and analysis resulted. By sometime in the mid 200s, those debates were being won by a sect of followers who had settled on the 27 book canon of the New Testament that we have today. Part of what was on their minds, it seems, were questions about consistency, plausibility, coherence with other older texts, and unification. That is, when these 2nd and 3rd century Christians were sifting through all of these hundreds of documents they made a deliberate effort to settle on one story. They consciously excluded the stories that did not seem to fit with the favored view, they even ruled some texts heretical. In short, they took a very large set of diverse writings and carved the version of the New Testament that we have out of them. That’s why you haven’t been reading the stories in Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Twelve, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Basilides, Gospel of Mathias, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Paul, Acts of John, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans. And That’s why you probably haven’t heard of Marcionism, gnosticism, the antitactici, Montanism, and other apocryphal writings, especially the ones that do not tell the same stories about Jesus.

So for the modern Christian to hold that book up centuries later and marvel at its coherence and unified message creates an ironic embarrassment. The reason that that book has those stories with those features in it and not some others is because a bunch of the early Christians went through all the early writings and found the ones that would hang together in that fashion. You’ve been handed an impressive looking bullseye, with a bullet hole through the center, but what they didn’t tell you is that after taking thousands of shots at a barn, they just found the one they liked and drew a circle around it. It’s a bit like leaving some money in an old savings account, forgetting about it, and then being surprised to find it in there years later. Except in the Bible case, Christians are using this false fortuitous event as support for a whole world view from the Iron Age, and wrecking our social, educational and political structure in the process.

It’s a wonder then, perhaps even a miracle, that the doctored text that we got isn’t more coherent and unified. But even a casual read reveals countless inconsistencies. Take just the accounts of the resurrection that we get in the four Gospels, and let’s throw in the non-cannonical Gospel of Peter.

In the Luke account, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women go to the tomb, find it open, talk to two men in shining garments, and then go tell what they saw to the other disciples.

In Mark, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome go to the tomb, find it open, and find one man sitting there in white inside. They talk to him, then they run away in fear and they do not say “any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”

In the Matthew account, Mary Magdalene and the “other” Mary go to the tomb. A great earthquake opens it by rolling the stone away. They go inside and find an angel of the Lord in white. Then they leave with fear and joy and run to bring the disciples word.

In the John account, Mary Magdalene (by herself) finds the tomb open. She goes and gets Simon Peter and the other disciple “that Jesus loved.” The two of them go to the tomb and find it empty. They leave, but Mary stays crying. Then two angels appear to her. Then Jesus himself appears to her. She talks to him and then goes to tell the rest of the disciples.

In the Gospel of Peter, the account of the resurrection that suggests grave robbing, and perhaps that’s part of why it got thrown out when they were “tidying” up and getting their story straight. In it, the Jews get Pilate to put Roman guards at the tomb. The guards hear a voice and then see two men come down from the sky and then carry a body out of the tomb. Later, Mary and her friends find someone dressed in white in the tomb who claims that Jesus is gone.

The Jesus sharpshooter fallacy and the starkly different stories of Jesus that persist should raise serious questions for anyone who thinks that this book can be employed as a reliable historical document or trusted for accuracy. The billions of Christians in the world celebrate the empty tomb, for instance, as the proof of their dogma, but if we include the Gospel of Peter account, then in four out of the five accounts, the tomb isn’t found empty at all; rather some one or two people (“angels”) are found inside. And in one case, they are seen removing the body. And none of the accounts tell the same story about who went to the tomb and the series of events after.

So now instead the Christian claim that the Jesus story is remarkable isn’t even as good as our hapless Texas sharpshooter. He shot one bullet at the barn and then drew the target around it after the fact. The baffling messiness of the resurrection stories are more like spraying thousands of bullets into the barn wall, drawing a convoluted shape around a handful of them, and then proudly announcing that you are an incredible shot.

This reminds me of the classic classroom example of the difference between accuracy and precision: Accuracy is a cluster of shots centered (but not tightly) around a bulls eye, while precision is a tighter grouping of shots that is off-center from the bulls eye. Only a grouping that is both tight and centered is both precise and accurate (respectively).

In the case of the resurrection story, the authors as a group are neither accurate nor precise. Only by shooting first and then drawing the circle around the tightest grouping do they create the illusion of accuracy. And then by eliminating the stories that fall outside of the circle, they further create the illusion of precision.

Nice, ungullible. And I've even contest the claim that the canonized stories are a tight cluster. Even a casual read reveals a baffling list of inconsistencies.

The idea that the Bible is a special, magical book with remarkable literary properties is so pervasive that even the non-believers and atheists will often give it deference. Were one to read that book for the first time without being immersed in a culture that reveres it so highly, you'd be utterly unimpressed.

There is just no way it could be right, is there. If it agrees then it was by design and if it disagrees then it's all wrong.

"Were one to read that book for the first time without being immersed in a culture that reveres it so highly, you'd be utterly unimpressed."

Did you actually read it? I am truly curious. The other day I met a confessing atheist, who told me the 10 commandments were non-nonsensical, rather he believed in the 7 deadly sins. Yet in the same sentence he told me he did not know what the 10 commandments are and asked me if I could tell him what they are.

"What the modern believer often fails to realize is that they are at the receiving end of a very long, complicated historical Sharpshooter fallacy. From the time of Jesus until about 250 A.D., hundreds of early Christian writings came into existence and began to circulate among early followers. These documents told a wide range of stories about Jesus, God, and the early history of Christianity. In some Jesus was not resurrected from the dead; he was only a man. In others, the course of events is very different than that told in the four Gospels. Intense debates and analysis resulted. By sometime in the mid 200s, those debates were being won by a sect of followers who had settled on the 27 book canon of the New Testament that we have today. Part of what was on their minds, it seems, were questions about consistency, plausibility, coherence with other older texts, and unification. That is, when these 2nd and 3rd century Christians were sifting through all of these hundreds of documents they made a deliberate effort to settle on one story. They consciously excluded the stories that did not seem to fit with the favored view, they even ruled some texts heretical. In short, they took a very large set of diverse writings and carved the version of the New Testament that we have out of them. That’s why you haven’t been reading the stories in Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Twelve, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Basilides, Gospel of Mathias, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Paul, Acts of John, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans. And That’s why you probably haven’t heard of Marcionism, gnosticism, the antitactici, Montanism, and other apocryphal writings, especially the ones that do not tell the same stories about Jesus."Matt, Actually I have heard of and read a great deal of the above mentioned heresies. What I find funny about this is your thinking that a Christian should accept a document written in 250 A.D as being a more historically accurate description of the resurrection than one written, or approved of, by those who witnessed the event. It wasn't so much the theology behind the writings that discarded them, or the inconsistencies, but the knowledge that these gospels were not written by the apostles. A person teaching Philosophy at a respected university, should not be letting Dan Brown do his research for him.The 27 books of the New Testament Canon were actually never officially decided on by anyone before the 16th century, and then not by all. Lutherans reject the council of Trent. The formation of what is commonly called the canon is a fascinating history that has a lot more to do with proving authorship than getting a consistent story.As for the stories not being consistent and persuasive. Well St. Augustine in his confessions talks about how awfully written were the books of the Bible. I tend to agree with him. One would not want to teach another the niceties of Greek composition from the Biblical writings. And the events recorded often find differing specifics. Which give the Bible somewhat of a peculiar credibility. Should people have been trying to select books for nothing more than a consistent story, it would not have been beyond them to change and edit the accounts yet that did not happen. Some have to varying degrees of ability been able to synthesize the accounts so they are more or less coherent. But they do record different specifics and details. This far from destroying the credibility of the different accounts gives them credibility. A lawyer looking at eyewitness reports of an accident would expect four people to give slightly different accounts as to what happened, some missing a couple details, some reporting different ones. If he doesn't find that he finds they were operating in cahoots. Also I don't find Brigitte's question of whether or not you have read the Bible to be out of line. You yourself make the claim that your living is one of attacking the Christian faith. I would expect that one who is to do this should be an expert on what he is attacking, which would require you to read the Bible, read accounts and arguments both for and against it, and so on. I don't expect him to be getting all his information from ill researched conspiracy theorists and fiction.

Did you actually read it? I am truly curious. The other day I met a confessing atheist, who told me the 10 commandments were non-nonsensical, rather he believed in the 7 deadly sins. Yet in the same sentence he told me he did not know what the 10 commandments are and asked me if I could tell him what they are.

Which version or the Ten Commandments? Exodus 20, or Exodus 34? Or do you prefer the version in Deuteronomy 5?

When God rewrote the Ten Commandments after Moses broke the original tablets (Exo 34:1)And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Why was the text different than originally reported (Exo 20)?

BTW, theocrat and congressman from Georgia Lynn Westmoreland, who co-sponsored a bill to require the display of the ten commandments in both the House and Senate of the U.S. Congress, could not name the Ten Commandments.

It wasn't so much the theology behind the writings that discarded them, or the inconsistencies, but the knowledge that these gospels were not written by the apostles. A person teaching Philosophy at a respected university, should not be letting Dan Brown do his research for him.

But some of those others, such as the Gospel of Judas, claimed to have been written by apostles. And as we found out the other day, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark did not claim to have been written by those gentlemen, that was only a traditional attribution tacked onto them by the early church.

And someone who dismisses Bart Ehrman, one of the best scholars of the New Testament working today, and a terrific writer as well, as "liberal" has no business making a crack about Dan Brown.

Reginald,let me ask you this: On what basis does Bart Erhman stake his claim that Matthew was written after 90 A.D. and that it was not Matthew who wrote it?I am betting the arguments are the typical liberal arguments, and I do dismiss them as do other highly regarded Biblical Scholars, a few of whom I have had the pleasure of studying under.

Bror Erickson: I'm sure Ehrman's reasons for doing so are better than your reasons for believing that the apostles Matthew and Mark are actually the authors of the Gospels which bear their names. The manuscripts themselves are anonymous, and that assignment was made by early church members for the same reason you probably have: that's what they preferred to believe. Once again, you are in no position to criticize.

Reginald,Mark wasn't an apostle. but hey if you think people 2,000 years after the fact are in a better position to ascribe authorship than the people within the first and second generations after the books were written than I don't know what to say.

The widespread consensus about the authorship of the Gospels is that they were not written by the eye witnesses and they were written decades after the alleged events. One might try to contest that, I suppose. But where would it get us? Suppose that all four gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses immediately after the alleged events (they weren't). Would it be reasonable to believe? No. In five minutes I can produce a hundred VIDEOS of alleged miracles on YouTube that are just as impressive but that are not real. And as the Salem Argument shows us, even when much more stringent standards of evidence are met than those in place around the Gospels, it's still not reasonable to believe that some supernatural event occurred. If the sworn affidavits of hundreds of eye witnesses in the Salem Witch trials aren't sufficient to prove that the women in Salem performed magic, then even on the best case scenario, the Gospels won't prove that Jesus did magic in the first century.

but hey if you think people 2,000 years after the fact are in a better position to ascribe authorship than the people within the first and second generations after the books were written than I don't know what to say.

And yet you seem to have no trouble at all dismissing similar claims of 2000 year old books such as the Gospel of Judas, the Apocalypse of Adam and the story of Honi the Circle Drawer. Your standard of judgment are spinning so fast you should hook up a windmill and milk some electricity out of it.

It's a pity Brigitte didn't have time to answer that question. I personally think this would make a great plaque for every courtroom and classroom in the world, (Exodus 34):

[12] Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:[13] But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:[14] For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:[15] Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods , and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;[16] And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

I don't understand your question.Why would what you quote be the list of the 10 commandments?

The contents of the 10 commandments is not under debate. It is a simple summary of the moral law. It is the moral law that matters. We would hopefully, you and I, likely, agree to the contents of it, aside from the fact that it begins with the fear and love of God.

The First CommandmentYou shall have no other gods.What does this mean?We should fear, love and trust in God above all things.The Second CommandmentYou shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not curse, swear, use satanic arts, lie,or deceive by His name, but call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and givethanks.The Third CommandmentRemember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word,but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it.The Fourth CommandmentHonor your father and your mother.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not despise or anger our parents andother authorities, but honor them, serve and obey them, love and cherish them.The Fifth CommandmentYou shall not murder.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in hisbody, but help and support him in every physical need.The Sixth Commandmenthttp://lcms.org/bookofconcord/smallcatechism.asp (5 of 23) [7/31/2003 4:25:23 PM]LCMS: The Small CatechismYou shall not commit adultery.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we lead a sexually pure and decent life inwhat we say and do, and husband and wife love and honor each other.The Seventh CommandmentYou shall not steal.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not take our neighbor's money orpossessions, or get them in any dishonest way, but help him to improve andprotect his possessions and income.The Eighth CommandmentYou shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbor, betrayhim, slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, andexplain everything in the kindest possible way.The Ninth CommandmentYou shall not covet your neighbor's house.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not scheme to get our neighbor'sinheritance or house, or get it in a way which only appears right, but help and be ofservice to him in keeping it.The Tenth CommandmentYou shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or maidservant, his ox or donkey,or anything that belongs to your neighbor.What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not entice or force away ourneighbor's wife, workers, or animals, or turn them against him, but urge them tostay and do their duty.http://lcms.org/bookofconcord/smallcatechism.asp (6 of 23) [7/31/2003 4:25:23 PM]LCMS: The Small Catechism

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for some of your capacity to understand.

Exodus 20: A listing of the Ten commandments, written by God and given to Moses. A very similar listing appears in Deuteronomy 5.

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 32:16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

Clear so far? The tablets with the Ten Commandments were written by God himself, not transcribed by Moses, or any other such nonsense.

Exodus 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Moses broke the tablets. Now we're ready to revisit Exodus 34:

[1] And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.[2] And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.[3] And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.[4] And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

So now God says he's going to provide an exact duplicate of the text, written in his own 'hand.' But then the commandments are listed again (as quoted above) and the text is different. What's up with that?

Here is a great point for atheism: God could not have writtten the ten commandments because at Moses' time the written hebrew language did not yet exist. Written hebrew is a much, much later development.Agnosticus

My book is out:

Search This Blog

Atheism

Author:

Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester. Teaching at CSUS since 1996. My main area of research and publication now is atheism and philosophy of religion. I am also interested in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and rational decision theory/critical thinking.

Quotes:

"Science. It works, bitches."

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you! He loves you and he needs money!"George Carlin 1937 - 2008

Many Paths, No God.

I don't go to church, I AM a church, for fuck's sake. I'm MINISTRY. --Al Jourgensen

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If life evolved, then there isn't anything left for God to do.

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe. Victor Stenger

Skeptical theists choose to ride the trolley car of skepticism concerning the goods that God would know so as to undercut the evidential argument from evil. But once on that trolley car it may not be easy to prevent that skepticism from also undercutting any reasons they may suppose they have for thinking that God will provide them and the worshipful faithful with life everlasting in his presence. William Rowe

Unless you're one of those Easter-bunny vitalists who believes that personality results from some unquantifiable divine spark, there's really no alternative to the mechanistic view of human nature. Peter Watts

The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another. E.O. Wilson

Creating humans who could understand the contrast between good and evil without subjecting them to eons of horrible suffering would be an utterly inconsequential matter for an omnipotent being. MM

The second commandment is "Thou shall not construct any graven images." Is this really the pinnacle of what we can achieve morally? The second most important moral principle for all the generations of humanity? It would be so easy to improve upon the 10 Commandments. How about "Try not to deep fry all of your food"? Sam Harris

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true--that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

If atheism is a religion, then not playing chess is a hobby.

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything--anything--be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in." Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 36.

"Only a tiny fraction of corpsesfossilize, and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 127.

One cannot take, "believing in X gives me hope, makes me moral, or gives me comfort," to be a reason for believing X. It might make me moral if I believe that I will be shot the moment I do something immoral, but that doesn't make it possible for me to believe it, or to take its effects on me as reasons for thinking it is true. Matt McCormick

Add this blog to your Google Page

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.

2. Myth: Prayer works.

Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.

3. Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.

There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.

4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.

In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.

5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.

We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.

6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.

7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.

The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.

8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.

All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it isall going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?

9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.

People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.

10: Myth: There is a God.

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

1. You can’t prove atheism.You can never prove a negative, so atheism requires as much faith as religion.

Atheists are frequently accosted with this accusation, suggesting that in order for non-belief to be reasonable, it must be founded on deductively certain grounds. Many atheists within the deductive atheology tradition have presented just those sorts of arguments, but those arguments are often ignored. But more importantly, the critic has invoked a standard of justification that almost none of our beliefs meet. If we demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe—oxygen exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, viruses cause disease, the 2008 summer Olympics were in China, and so on. The believer has invoked one set of abnormally stringent standards for the atheist while helping himself to countless beliefs of his own that cannot satisfy those standards. Deductive certainty is not required to draw a reasonable conclusion that a claim is true.

As for requiring faith, is the objection that no matter what, all positions require faith?Would that imply that one is free to just adopt any view they like?Religiousness and non-belief are on the same footing?(they aren’t).If so, then the believer can hardly criticize the non-believer for not believing. Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith?Faith is a bad thing?That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement.

2. The evidence shows that we should believe.

If in fact there is sufficient evidence to indicate that God exists, then a reasonable person should believe it. Surprisingly, very few people pursue this line as a criticism of atheism. But recently, modern versions of the design and cosmological arguments have been presented by believers that require serious consideration. Many atheists cite a range of reasons why they do not believe that these arguments are successful. If an atheist has reflected carefully on the best evidence presented for God’s existence and finds that evidence insufficient, then it’s implausible to fault them for irrationality, epistemic irresponsibility, or for being obviously mistaken.Given that atheists are so widely criticized, and that religious belief is so common and encouraged uncritically, the chances are good that any given atheist has reflected more carefully about the evidence.

3. You should have faith.

Appeals to faith also should not be construed as having prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence or arguments do. The general view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound, that imposes an epistemic obligation of sorts on her to accept the conclusion. One person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable. At the very least, having faith, where that means believing despite a lack of evidence or despite contrary evidence is highly suspect. Having faith is the questionable practice, not failing to have it.

4. Atheism is bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing.

These accusations have been dealt with countless times. But let’s suppose that they are correct. Would they be reasons to reject the truth of atheism? They might be unpleasant affects, but having negative emotions about a claim doesn’t provide us with any evidence that it is false. Imagine upon hearing news about the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki someone steadfastly refused to believe it because it was bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing. Suppose we refused to believe that there is an AIDS epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in Africa on the same grounds.

5.Atheism is bad for you.Some studies in recent years have suggested that people who regularly attend church, pray, and participate in religious activities are happier, live longer, have better health, and less depression.

First, these results and the methodologies that produced them have been thoroughly criticized by experts in the field.Second, it would be foolish to conclude that even if these claims about quality of life were true, that somehow shows that there is theism is correct and atheism is mistaken.What would follow, perhaps, is that participating in social events like those in religious practices are good for you, nothing more.There are a number of obvious natural explanations.Third, it is difficult to know the direction of the causal arrow in these cases.Does being religious result in these positive effects, or are people who are happier, healthier, and not depressed more inclined to participate in religions for some other reasons?Fourth, in a number of studies atheistic societies like those in northern Europe scored higher on a wide range of society health measures than religious societies.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.”It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions.“Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

7.Atheists are harsh, intolerant, and hateful of religion.

Sam Harris has advocated something he calls “conversational intolerance.”For too long, a confusion about religious tolerance has led people to look the other way and say nothing while people with dangerous religious agendas have undermined science, the public good, and the progress of the human race.There is no doubt that people are entitled to read what they choose, write and speak freely, and pursue the religions of their choice.But that entitlement does not guarantee that the rest of us must remain silent or not verbally criticize or object to their ideas and their practices, especially when they affect all of us.Religious beliefs have a direct affect on who a person votes for, what wars they fight, who they elect to the school board, what laws they pass, who they drop bombs on, what research they fund (and don’t), which social programs they fund (and don’t), and a long list of other vital, public matters.Atheists are under no obligation to remain silent about those beliefs and practices that urgently need to be brought into the light and reasonably evaluated.

Real respect for humanity will not be found by indulging your neighbor’s foolishness, or overlooking dangerous mistakes.Real respect is found in disagreement.The most important thing we can do for each other is disagree vigorously and thoughtfully so that we can all get closer to the truth.

8.Science is as much a religious ideology as religion is.

At their cores, religions and science have a profound difference.The essence of religion is sustaining belief in the face of doubts, obeying authority, and conforming to a fixed set of doctrines.By contrast, the most important discovery that humans have ever made is the scientific method.The essence of that method is diametrically opposed to religious ideals:actively seek out disconfirming evidence.The cardinal virtues of the scientific approach are to doubt, analyze, critique, be skeptical, and always be prepared to draw a different conclusion if the evidence demands it.